Can someone share their experience between inserting the GCs in their digital/cd path as compared to their vinyl signal path? Does the GC make more of impact in one vs the other, and what is the difference qualitatively? A prior comment was that the GC smoothed out the cd harshness (my paraphrase) and I’m wondering what the effect on vinyl sound signature is. Thanks for sharing.
In our impression of what the fluid metal brings to the table it is a notable lack of the unwanted aspects of dynamic peak distortions that the complex impedance of a ’wire’ based cable imparts upon said dynamic peaks. It is inherent to most cables and wire period, to the point that many people get their idea of detail and information from some of these time smeared dynamic peak distortions. This is inherent to audio circuit design and is the entire audio endeavor in a nutshell. but it is also prevalent in cables.
The fluid metal tends to have notably less of this with respect to being an issue..and it is tied deeply to the way we hear, which is via listening to dynamic peaks in signal. Which is where these low levels of distortion occur, when the engineers test and measure. The relationship to how we hear and what is measured is not linear and engineers are looking at linear weighting in their numbers and their musing..... so they miss the point and the relationship almost entirely. the vanishingly low levels of distortion they find are actually pretty well 100% of what the ear hears. And the 100% of the signal that their measurement systems look at are not relatable to how the ear works. Completely wrong weighting. This ultra critical point is writ large across the combination of information on how the ear works vs how engineers weigh or look at the signal they are measuring. The two, at this time, are not in sync in how they are looked at and their importance/relationship to one another.
So we end up with a quieter cable (with the fluid), and the details we hear by, those complex dynamic peaks..those are less damaged, and thus notably easier to hear, it is notably easier to hear complex dynamic music structure.
The metallic alloy fluid is not ’darker’ per se, in some important ways, it is merely producing less distortions that slur and cover up fine detail, as compared to what some other technology may produce as side effects in signal conduction.
Which can mean that the fluid metal cable can be said to be capable of unraveling harmonically complex and richly detailed passages , without hiccups, or loss. Comparatively speaking, that is, as nothing is perfect. Better only, if one is lucky.
Rich microdetailed passages come through more unharmed, without peak signal etching (which is part and parcel of dynamic peak smearing). Peak signal etching is sometimes mistaken for detail, in a blunt fashion, by systems and implementations that cannot unravel ultra fine detail. Say like, bad pro audio. Cerwin vega from the 80’s, etc. And some high end audio configurations with bad design, like badly executed crossover designs in speakers. Bad crossover design is sadly, all too common. When the Teo cable is inserted in such systems, they just find it dark. Ie, trying to overcome muddy crossover and bad box design by using gear that introduces blunt force trauma in the form of hard peak detail falsification.
When people have worked hard to build systems that are not peaky and hard (false detail), but open and capable of rich detail delineation, and that delineation is built out of as little peak distortion characteristics and the person involved (system builder) can make it to be.... then they find that the liquid metal cable is doing what they want a cable to do. What they spent their entire audio design and build life, trying desperately to attain.
Ie, closer to real life richness and dynamics (micro and macro, in time and levels), and far away from muddy screechy ’detail poseur’ harshness.
